| Revision as of 11:00, 1 December 2006 editMONGO (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers76,644 edits →UPS← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:11, 1 December 2006 edit undoMONGO (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers76,644 edits archiveNext edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| == Threat of bodily harm to WP editor on external forum == | |||
| Hey. Along the lines of "Defend Each Other", {{Vandal|Solidpoint}} made a threat of bodily harm to editor SWATJester in an (See ANI thread ). It would appear that an indef block on Solidpoint for the threat is called for. I'm dropping this on a few admins talk's to try and resolve quickly, though it's on ANI now. Thanks. ] 21:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Empty cat == | |||
| Also added here: ] <sup>]</sup> 21:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == What did I do? == | |||
| Mongo, Did I say something to insult you again? I really never meant to. Please tell what I said that made you feel bad. I really want to know. --] 23:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hello, | |||
| An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ]. | |||
| On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 23:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == An article in need of your input == | |||
| The ] article is in serious need of attention. It presents numerous Conspiracy Theories regarding alleged ties between Saddam/Iraq and al Qaeda as fact, when these theories have been refuted, rejected, denied and discounted by the U.S. Government, various U.S. Governmental hearings and commissions, and almost all the respected experts, many of whom are retired U.S. Intelligence. This is a clear case of misusing Wiki to advance fallacious and discredited Conspiracy Theories. Perhaps you could help there. Thanks in advance. - ] 00:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Looks like a good admin candidate. 14000 edits with 6000 in mainspace. No blocks. Good eye for BS and lots of article cleanup. --] 07:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks good to me...maybe see if they are interested in becoming an admin.--] 19:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] 23:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Still no bumper sticker? == | |||
| These things are the latest fashion: ] | |||
| —] <sup>]</sup> 08:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah...I think I'll not advertise...but thanks though. If I did, I'd have tank or or toilet plunger as my pics.--] 09:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I really wasn't seriously suggesting that you do. I find them a bit silly. Anyway, I replaced the individual links above with the category I created for them so that your talk page won't show up on the "What links here" for the images. —] <sup>]</sup> 09:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, I didn't mean to be dismissive. Thanks again though.--] 09:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Sockpuppet watch == | |||
| {{IPVandal|67.37.179.61}} - Chicago, Sprint<br> | |||
| {{IPVandal|70.8.49.7}} - Chicago, Sprint<br> | |||
| {{IPVandal|70.8.151.103}} - Chicago, Sprint <br> | |||
| {{IPVandal|68.30.26.171}} - Chicago, Sprint <br> | |||
| {{IPVandal|68.30.87.114}} - Chicago, Sprint <br> | |||
| {{IPvandal|70.8.91.12}} - Chicago, Sprint<br> | |||
| {{IPvandal|70.8.132.79}} - Chicago, Sprint<br> | |||
| --] 19:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Heh...may have to semi-protect the talkpage if that disruption about "feds" isgoing to continue...maybe best if it does you or someone else puts in a request for semi-protection.--] 19:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, you got your wish on the sprot for the talk page. I fear that ] may end up needing it as well. Add {{IPvandal|70.8.91.12}} and {{IPvandal|70.8.132.79}} to the list. I'd be rather curious to hear a CheckUser on {{vandal|Cplot}} before his block. --] 23:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I've opened ] but not sure what can be done for anon IP's.--] 04:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Mediation of Sept 11th article. POV == | |||
| As part of the first step of advocating the wiki rights of cplot I am begining the steps towards dispute resolution ]. User cplot has attempted to contact you on numerous occasions regarding alleged hostility on your behalf. | |||
| You then blatantly obfuscate and escalate the situation by being rude You appear to be ignoring the first steps of ]. That is you are failling the "talking to the other parties" via removing communications attempts from cplot on your user page and then by blocking him, according to ], in a contreversial block. It appears that you and cplot are involved in a content dispute. According to ] "Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. If in doubt, report the problem to other admins to act on. (You may be wrong!)" Your aggressive actions (rubing in the face that he has been blocked) and even betting in a gamely fashion on when he'll be back to "disrupt" go against the wikipedia spirit and I would take this as a personal attack! To me it appears as though you blocked him because he added the category on a talk page... which is allegedly by accident. You then, instead of just changing it, asked him to remove it in a rude manner. | |||
| You have even gone to the point of stalking the edits he does on his own user page! You may have had grounds to push a 3RR block in the past for against cplot but the prejucial effect of using this statement in your current 1 week block outweighted the wiki-rules judicial effect. Essentially your blocking him on this latest count is highly prejucial and I put it to you that you did it in anger! Seriously, blocking someone for "ADDING A CATEGORY TO A TALK PAGE! Come ON!" You blocked him because of the escalating uncivility which was occuring inbetween each other. According to ] your actions are not the encouraged. This biased bloking, as suggested cplot, was simply based on my clients past rapport with you and your lack of good faith (as I've demonstrated above) to properly communicate. | |||
| This constant bikering is not only childish but totally disruptive for new commers in this article. I want to relax and read the issues concerning this article not read bikering on secondary... no not even... third degree issues. Though you have both played escalating roles in this revenge, trully Mongo has attempted to give the last hit with a revengeful BLOCK! | |||
| Now go figure, right at the point when cplot appears to receive support and begin a good debate you go and block him from representing his point... not on the article... but in the discussion page so you can resolve the underlining problem. | |||
| Cplot has placed a request for POV template addition to the article. (Which has been added). nevertheless he has been gang up on: with rude comments essentially telling him to fuck off. "...you want to add YOUR POV to the article. Please stop trying that. It is pointless and takes uses time and energy that could be used to improve the article and improve wikipedia. --Regebro 12:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)" Instead of concentrating on trying to suppress cplot perhaps wild conspiracies perhaps you should be a little friendlier in helping him (or in your case disprove) prove how he can add properly cited ] material for building an article which is evenly balanced in POVs. Remember, this goes for you too cplot, ] has a lovely quote, which I added at the start, that indicated every article has POVs! Now lets work on having a well balanced POV article... that would hence be ] according to wiki rules. It is for these reasons I believe we should begin mediation ] if not for the lack of civility then at least for the POV issues within the article (which appear to me to be the route of the problem). | |||
| --] 21:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You appear to be an army of one....Cplot is nothing but disruptive...the category he was adding was disruptive and your commentary above is disruptive. See:--] 22:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::We are discussing facts here. These are elements that you have done. Where would you like for me to post it. If you prefer talking by email it can be aranged. Nevertheless, I too agree with you! My afformentioned commentary is disruptive; for me because I have taken the 2 hours of my life to anylise the possible injustice and bullying that appears to be happening. For you because I have stated my observation in the most appropriate location, your user page on wikipedia. If I can put it to you, the only thing that is really disruptive is the fact that it is verbios and seemingly takes up a little room on your talk page. Maybe also it is disruptive because it's unerving. So much so that my leg is presently twitching and my intesting are working faster. I have looked at your communications with cplot and I find it discusting and lacking in wikipedia civility. (not to say cplot didn't escalate any of the situation) But my observation show that you appear to be enraged and rude towards cplot from the start. That rage is being taken out in all the wrong ways. I simple request for civility is usually enough to make people understand. If you are alleging sock-puppets that is another story which is only prejucidial to the current block. I'm sure you could argue that in the appropriate venue. We are presently focused with his 1 week block.(Which I assume you're the administrator that blocked him, correct?) I am asking that you reconsider the block because it appears to have been done in a spitful and ragefull manner. Not only will this be an excellent oppertunity for you to perhaps begin negotiations towards helping wikipedia be representative of many POV's, hence NPOV articles, but you will have put wise feather under your hat towards conflict resolution. If you keep the block, it will probably, as per Wp:Block, only increase the tention towards the article. Don't forget he still has some key issues that he wants to present, this time though he has an advocate. May I suggest you seriously think of cutting the block a little earlier... I'm sure we can discuss and avoid the further steps towards RFC or dispute resolution. Finally, for the last time I will say this, I personnaly believe, as sumbtantiated up above, that when you block cplot you met the criterias for WP:Block but that little section that says "when not to block". --] 02:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::CyclePat...I pointed you towars the comments at AN/I...had any admin felt my block was wrong, they could have overturned it. I have no once been unfair on this matter. Cplot has presented zero as far as key issues...all he wants to do is take out the conspiracy theory section, yet replace it with a list of conspiracy theory books...that makes no sense at all. The guy repeatedly added a nonexistant category to talkpages, claiming oviously ridiclous reasons for not knowing how that may have happened, then adding it to his own talkpage...come on, man, surely you can see that. I think that sums things up.--] 05:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Hello Mongo, thank you for your reply and your explanation. I am also glad that we are able to finally discuss the situation. I saw that he added a non-existant category once! Also, I was not really paying attention to the content of the article but advocating the rights of cplot. More particularly the way and the reasons he was blocked. I'm actually glad you have pointed out Cplot's views. It shows how much you are involved in that article and that perhaps the build up of frustration overcame you. Perhaps you can give cplot a temporary block instead of inderminate. Hopefully it won't be more than 1-2 weeks (that's including that extension because of the puppeteering)) (I'm sure though he has his ways of getting around if what you say is true though) Anyway with 1 to 2 weeks he would be able to contribute before christmas. Hopefully he will have read that list of books we could provide some key points for the article... a summary for each one. I would just like to point out that, yes, there is obviously contradiction in the way an article will go, but we must remain friendly. Finally, I would like to suggest that in the future, even if you may be 100% correct, such as the addition of categories to talk pages, to take the necessary steps of placing any appropriate warnings, ((civil0)), or simply a template warning ("the benefit of the doubt"). Usually then it won't be as contreversial of a block. (Which I still believe it is, and why I am asking for you to reconsider the indefinate block). Again as an external viewer of the situation, even with the other admin people at WP:AN/I (which most appear to have been frustrated with as well) it looks as though you jumped the gun in a rude and spitfull manner to silence a POV you don't or didn't agree with. Think about it! With the up most respect and sincerelly, good luck with future debates on content dispute. --] 22:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::No way...after I blocked him for a week, he reposted the same nonexistant category in one of his edits on his usertalk. I know trolling when I see it and there isn't anything else to say on the matter, so kindly stop posting here about it.--] 22:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::It seems to me, your efforts would be better spent with an RfC? the block was reviewed and upheld. Cplot appears to be a sockpuppet troll. Your observations don't show anything that you claim and your continuation of this particular line of badgering is disruptive and not helpful. If you have comments about the block, it's listed on AN/I. If you have concerns about the article that are not being addressed on the Talk page, there is RfC, mediation or ArbComm. --] 03:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==I see you're now a paid federal agent== | |||
| See . He was posting it all over the place. I've left two warnings and if he does it again, he'll get blocked, but expect more Cplot sock puppets. I love Cplot's protestations of innocence on his Talk page. :) ]|] 23:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Ha...yeah...if everyone could see the plush surroundings those fat government checks provide me, they would surely want to make the "big bucks" I make. They picked that junk off encyclopedia dramtica after I made a comment about working for USDHS...where i haven't worked since last june. I ess the feds must be paying me to write articles on national parks and things like that too...I mean...why not, since obviously they don't already have websites devoted to those areas...:). The feds as a government could care less about Wiki...though individuals such as congressman and senators may take some notice of their bios here.--] 05:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: They obviously don't realize that the feds are smart enough to not use any editors who were ever directly in their employ...] 05:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Exactly...but of course...it's all part of the great conspiracy! I wish I did get paid to edit wiki! As much times as I am online, my overtime would sure be nice.--] 05:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| How come no one ever bothers me for being a paid mole of KKKarl Rove's? ] 17:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Ha....I have my own thoughts on the Bush administration, which I don't dare repeat here for fear of violation ], but for sure, many a bad decision was made with the events of 9/11 as a rallying point.--] 18:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == UPS == | == UPS == | ||
Revision as of 11:11, 1 December 2006
UPS
Do you know for sure that that is real and not a hoax? —Doug Bell 10:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- To remove all the other info, I cut and pasted the vital part into the email...it's a fact.--MONGO 10:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. A little Christmas cheer perhaps. :-( —Doug Bell 10:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Nah...I just learned it was a joke...guess I should follow up on this issue better...sorry.--MONGO 10:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I would have thought you to be more of a skeptic than to get fooled by a standard Internet joke. It sure read like one. :-) —Doug Bell 10:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, but the person who sent it to me, never jokes...and is an executive series (ES) level emloyee...he also sent it to about 100 other people...probably trying to see how many of them called his bluff...I guess I failed his test!--MONGO 10:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I wonder how long until someone else sends it to me that's less connected than you are. I'm sure it's out there now. —Doug Bell 10:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- My connections these days are only via email...frankly, I am suprised he still had my address since I no longer work for them. I guess he just hit send all. But, I did call his hoax by sending him the link to the website I have also emailed you which was sent to me by User:Wsiegmund.--MONGO 11:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I wonder how long until someone else sends it to me that's less connected than you are. I'm sure it's out there now. —Doug Bell 10:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, but the person who sent it to me, never jokes...and is an executive series (ES) level emloyee...he also sent it to about 100 other people...probably trying to see how many of them called his bluff...I guess I failed his test!--MONGO 10:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I would have thought you to be more of a skeptic than to get fooled by a standard Internet joke. It sure read like one. :-) —Doug Bell 10:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Nah...I just learned it was a joke...guess I should follow up on this issue better...sorry.--MONGO 10:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. A little Christmas cheer perhaps. :-( —Doug Bell 10:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)